NationStates Jolt Archive

basically, that they need not conflict, but they do not necessarily deal with completely separate parts of life...

Agreed


I thought maybe you were going along the lines of evolution is a religion for some people.

I'd have to agree with that also.

Agreed


I thought maybe you were going along the lines of evolution is a religion for some people.

I'd have to agree with that also.

actually, I was also going for something like that, but it was more along the lines of science in general is religion for some people...

Observation is my religion.

so you believe what you see?

Observation is my religion.

actually, I was also going for something like that, but it was more along the lines of science in general is religion for some people...

For some, I'd say it is.

Observation is my religion.so you believe what you see?
Or see only what you believe?

Or see only what you believe?

that would be the main problem in religion-science conflicts... on both sides...

...and God, amidst the tragic sorrows of His children, saw the corruption and pain of his creation, but this He could abide...

...then God looked upon the poisoning of the Earth and the Air and the very Spirit of the Waters, writhing in acrid contamination, and he sorely mourned, but this he could abide...

...so God, hearing the cries of so many, stayed his hand, as a terrible, fiery Holocaust consumed so many, as the eager ovens swallowed tired, terrified, starving bodies, and this, He could abide...

...and, God felt, to the depth of His heart, the anguish of all sentient life, in all the world, even in all worlds, but this, all at once, He could abide...

...but then God read that one of His creations wrote this:

You believe in Science and Math...Well bet you didn't know Mathematically it's impossible to throw a curveball, yet pitchers do it all the time.

He blinked once, read it twice, then Created a Gun that could kill even Him, and put it in His mouth.

Hey guys I think Tucker Island is a parrot.

Does that mean he's a somebody pretending to be insipid to discredit his ostensible position?

'Cause I'd buy that.

Or see only what you believe?

Or believe only what you see:P

I have never seen America. A lot of people say that it exists or that they even live there(!!)
but I'm not convinced until I see it with my own eyes. For all I know you all might be creations of my imagination:O

'You believe in Science and Math...Well bet you didn't know Mathematically it's impossible to throw a curveball, yet pitchers do it all the time.'

Sorry, but that's absolute bull. If it's mathematically impossible, it wouldn't happen in the first place. Mathematics is one of the few things in this world which is absolutely, definately true, and we can prove that.


My opinion?

Good science disagrees with religion.
Good religion gives up and agrees with science.

My opinion?

Good science disagrees with religion.
Good religion gives up and agrees with science.


Ummm so where religion and science agree?

Ummm so where religion and science agree?Do they? If so, then where?

Moses built the ark of the covenant which is very real.

That isn't evidence. Even if you could show me the Ark of the Covenant (which you can't), you can't prove that 'Moses' built it - or even that he (or it) has ever existed.

'Evidence' is when you actually provide something material that we can analyse... not when you preach.

Do they? If so, then where?

I seem to remember the Bible talking about the sphere of the world. One of the JW's favourite points.

I seem to remember the Bible talking about the sphere of the world. One of the JW's favourite points.

Well to be accurate the Bible would have needed to talk about oblate spheroids ;);)

I seem to remember the Bible talking about the sphere of the world. One of the JW's favourite points.What are you referring to?

What are you referring to?

Shall I type this slower?

What do you not understand?

Shall I type this slower?
What do you not understand?Your English, obviously.
What about sphere of the world? What is your point? And what bible passage are you referring to?

Your English, obviously.
What about sphere of the world? What is your point? And what bible passage are you referring to?

Man I can't remember what passage, I aint a christian. I do however remember it being pointed out to me by the ever crusading JW's, as proof that the bible held some stuff that was scientific 'fact'.

The words 'The sphere of the world' where clearly visible. Perhaps one of our residant Christains may know of the passage?

Ummm so where religion and science agree?
Historians see strong evidence that the person Jesus actually lived, ofcourse that says nothing about the myth surrounding him. Same with Mohammed.

Man I can't remember what passage, I aint a christian. I do however remember it being pointed out to me by the ever crusading JW's, as proof that the bible held some stuff that was scientific 'fact'.

The words 'The sphere of the world' where clearly visible. Perhaps one of our residant Christains may know of the passage?

Actually, the Bible seems to support a flat earth idea.

Actually, the Bible seems to support a flat earth idea.

Perhaps, although I can't remember reading anything like that, where Ican remember this.

*shrug* We all know the Bible and contradictions though huh.

Man I can't remember what passage, I aint a christian. I do however remember it being pointed out to me by the ever crusading JW's, as proof that the bible held some stuff that was scientific 'fact'.

The words 'The sphere of the world' where clearly visible. Perhaps one of our residant Christains may know of the passage?

I think you might be referring to Isaiah 40:22 "[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

Historians see strong evidence that the person Jesus actually lived, ofcourse that says nothing about the myth surrounding him. Same with Mohammed.

Really? Care to show us some, or point us in the right direction?

I think you might be referring to Isaiah 40:22 "[It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"

That might be it, perhaps the 'circle of the Earth' is differant translation.

Historians see strong evidence that the person Jesus actually lived, ofcourse that says nothing about the myth surrounding him. Same with Mohammed.

Historians speculate that A person called Jesus actually lived. Lots of scientists are inclined to accept the idea of the biblical Jesus being (based on?) a real person... but that's not really because of any evidence.

That might be it, perhaps the 'circle of the Earth' is differant translation.

The argument is that 'circle', here, suggests 'sphere'.

There are problems, of course - not least being the idea of Satan ascending a mountain so high you could see all of the world from it....

Atheists cannot read the bible, because atheists lack intelligence.

Atheists cannot read the bible, because atheists lack intelligence.

Bwahahahahah.

Atheists cannot read the bible, because atheists lack intelligence.

'Discernment' would have been the better answer.

What about Atheist who were once Christians, and thus, have already read it?

Bwahahahahah.

seconded.

Historians speculate that A person called Jesus actually lived. Lots of scientists are inclined to accept the idea of the biblical Jesus being (based on?) a real person... but that's not really because of any evidence.
Weren't there historical records? I found this (http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html) article, but I don't know if it's that trustworthy, with the bias and all.

Atheists cannot read the bible, because atheists lack intelligence.

Where to even start....

Weren't there historical records? I found this (http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html) article, but I don't know if it's that trustworthy, with the bias and all.

There are NO independent, contemporary evidences. Nothing written by an impartial commentator, at a time close to the alleged events. Josephus (for whom, most of the commentary seems to have been added at a later date), for example, wasn't even born when the events he describes are supposed to have taken place.

So - any sources would HAVE to be secondary, at very best. It would be like trying to work out if Hitler existed, if ALL the evidence we have now was missing, and we had one or two documents written this year, by a couple of highschool kids.

Add to that - what does exist is of varying reliability (Tacitus makes some pretty basic errors, for someone intimately connected to Roman order), and of dubious provenence and relevence.

There are NO independent, contemporary evidences. Nothing written by an impartial commentator, at a time close to the alleged events. Josephus (for whom, most of the commentary seems to have been added at a later date), for example, wasn't even born when the events he describes are supposed to have taken place.

So - any sources would HAVE to be secondary, at very best. It would be like trying to work out if Hitler existed, if ALL the evidence we have now was missing, and we had one or two documents written this year, by a couple of highschool kids.

Add to that - what does exist is of varying reliability (Tacitus makes some pretty basic errors, for someone intimately connected to Roman order), and of dubious provenence and relevence.

Yes but unlike today were the literacy rate is over 95% in developed countries, back in those days many of the stories were passed by word of mouth, and there would have been some Chinese whispers which would have changed the story and eventually was written down by someone who had the ability to write. It is one thing to say that Jesus was not the Son of God and all the miracles he performed were entirely false, it is another thing to say entirely that there was no man who called himself Jesus walking around, and when we point to another source other than the bible you claim it is folly. Reminds me of those people who claim that the world is only 6000 years old despite being shown evidence to the contrary.

Atheists cannot read the bible, because atheists lack intelligence.

Did anyone consider that this could be sarcasm

Did anyone consider that this could be sarcasm

I had a look at some of their other posts and it didn't seem likely, but then too few posts to mention. Also kicks of in the Pascal's wager and nihilism thread.

Yes but unlike today were the literacy rate is over 95% in developed countries, back in those days many of the stories were passed by word of mouth, and there would have been some Chinese whispers which would have changed the story and eventually was written down by someone who had the ability to write. It is one thing to say that Jesus was not the Son of God and all the miracles he performed were entirely false, it is another thing to say entirely that there was no man who called himself Jesus walking around, and when we point to another source other than the bible you claim it is folly. Reminds me of those people who claim that the world is only 6000 years old despite being shown evidence to the contrary.

Yet there where contampory writters, and you would have thought that the news of such miracles being performed would have caught the attention of at least one of them umm?

That isn't evidence. Even if you could show me the Ark of the Covenant (which you can't), you can't prove that 'Moses' built it - or even that he (or it) has ever existed.

'Evidence' is when you actually provide something material that we can analyse... not when you preach.

What would you consider evidence? I am asking you this if the passages from Exodus where not a part of the bible and found during archaeological diggings, which mentioned it would you then believe that it was built?

Not everything in the Bible is true and 100% accurate, but some things are, now who knows if the Jews built a box and claimed that it proved that it was God giving them the right to invade other peoples land, and that they were the chosen ones. Please GnI take the Old Testament as a recording of the Jewish History, remember it is not really a passage from God but some of it is writings on the history of the Jews, with a strong Jewish bias, so when read it read it objectively and recognise the type of person who wrote it and the world they lived in.

Do they? If so, then where?

The function of Gravity perhaps? Would Social Science count? :)

Yet there where contampory writters, and you would have thought that the news of such miracles being performed would have caught the attention of at least one of them umm?

I never said that it was about the miracles did I? Or did you just read in my post what you wanted to read? I said that they were contemporary writers who wrote that there was a man called Jesus, as I said it is one thing to say that the miracles did not happen and that he wasn't the son of God, but another thing to say that they was a man called Jesus walking around Jerusalem

Religion is nothing more then wasted funds on an economy, a pain to any government and a waste of brain power to any person.
Nothing more then a childs fairy tale and should be taken as seriously as such.

The revolution begins here, religion must be abolished for a government to truly reap the rewards of its efforts.

D.X.M

Religion is nothing more then wasted funds on an economy, a pain to any government and a waste of brain power to any person.
Nothing more then a childs fairy tale and should be taken as seriously as such.

The revolution begins here, religion must be abolished for a government to truly reap the rewards of its efforts.

D.X.M

So you believe that the government should have that much power? That it should be ABLE to abolish religion?
And do you think it is even possible for a government mandate to abolish religion? What about the people I mentioned earlier for whom science is religion? Does the government abolish science? Or just reprogram these peoples' minds?

So basically two questions:
1) Do you think that it's reasonable to place that expectation on the government?
2) Do you actually think it's possible?

Jhahannam: I hope you're still reading this!! I apologise for the late reply, but was occupied the past day, and this is only a brief respite from my exam revision.

To all respectable NSGers: I apologise that I am not going to respond to any other posters regarding this discussion to keep it clear and simple. Thanks!

Thus, if Christianity is not "the only way" and isn't necessary for all, it doesn't really satisfy the criteria for being "the One True Religion". You never claimed it was, of course, but again, we've established that religion is something that is "used" as "coping mechanism", not something that reflects categorical truth.
Indeed - but see below for qualifications.



And others don't love from the bottom of their hearts? I think you underestimate everyone who isn't Christian.
The point is: as far as I have observed from the families of friends around me, no, the quality of love is higher in my family than in theirs. I do not claim to be able to judge everybody's hearts as you seem to imply you are able to: I am only able to judge from what I see, not what I do not see and assume to be able to see.


If a Christian can love without the dogma, and if people who are not Christian can just as easily love, then the Christianity is not the correlate to the ability to love.See above.





This part of your response was directed at the part where I claimed that the reason people turn to religion is to assure themselves of things they need to be true. You feel this is the sole reason, and a good reason, to believe something?
My point is that faith is the final piece in the train that leads anyone to believe in anything. Religious people have chosen a specific religion to validate their observations of the world. Non-religious people have chosen an alternative standard of faith. The difference isn't "faith". The difference is "choice of faith".


What I originally asked for was for you to show how your observations show the Bible is an accurate reflection of human nature, and moreso, how it does so in any way superlative to any other literature, including fiction.
I believe I have answered it already: the Bible validates and explains everything as far as I am able to observe and experience, which is why I referred to the verses.



So, then, we agree that your family, and anyone else's, could arrive at all the same benefits, WITHOUT christianity.
Nope. You are trying to find a "scientific", universal theory of love, trying to get factors that apply to all in, and anything that doesn't apply to all out. But I'm not doing that. What I am trying to say is that as far as I have observed in my surroundings, Chrsitianity has made a difference in loving families. The onus of proving otherwise (e.g. raising specific examples), not just conjecturing on a universal theory, lies on you now.

I almost believe that I'm the more scientific person out of us. I at least provided a concrete evidence of observation in my realm of intellect of how I came to believe in Christianity. You are still floating about in trying to establish a universal theory where there can be no theory without any evidence or examples of observation.


Then my pet theory has one small data point to support it.
Kudos to you.



The above is an example of rules and dogma [i.e. what MUST I do to inherit eternal life], which you claim Christianity does not have. The above verses contain a great deal of dogma (defined here, from the dictionary)

Dogma:

A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See synonyms at doctrine.
A principle or belief or a group of them: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present” (Abraham Lincoln).

So, we see your position is rife with dogma, yet if I understand your statement, even you can see that this dogma is unnecessary and not universal.

I see. I apologise for my poorly defined use of "dogma". What I originally felt that you were saying was that Christians are only begrudgingly forced to love others because "God said so". If you now clarify what you meant then I say: yes, Christians can only love the way they love because of the belief in this dogma.



Religion should only be used as cultural and familial utillity and coping mechanism, as opposed to any kind of recognition of some kind of universal Truth?

I think you should spread this view to other religious people.

Ah...here is where my view becomes more complicated. For certain religions, like mine, you can only use it as a cultural and familial utility and coping mechanism only when you recognise it as a kind of truth. Does that make sense?



We can love without a book to tell us to, or how, and we can love without religious dogma. We can raise and love children without it. Your family used it, and I would not restrain your free practice of religion. As long as we agree that other religions and those of no religion can love just as well (and thus demonstrate that Christianity is unnecessary in this regard) then we can agree.
We can. Of course non-religious people can love - it is an innate human condition. But so far, my experience with the book and my family have shown that it is possible for us to love in a better way than others. Unless I can find, or you can show me, a non-religious family that can love better than what I have experienced, I am going to stick with my point.



Actually, your own declarative statements have strongly supported my model of Christianity as an unnecessary* coping mechanism, and that those without religion can do just as well in family, love, children, etc.

In a way it isn't biologically necessary, no. If you want to whittle down to the very basics of human survival, no. But it makes the experience much better - as far as my personal observation and experience are concerned.


It helped you, but it seems you've acknowledged that you could have done all the same things without it. Its just one method no more valid than others. If all practitioners of Christianity saw it that way, I think it would be progress.
I staunchly refuse to speculate about what could have happened but did not happen. All I establish is that it happened, and it's proved to be brilliant, and so I'm going to continue to let it happen, and tell people about how good it was when it happened.


Oh, by the way, a logophile is one who loves words. Your use of words seem to reveal a certain quirkiness, and your progression of predicates seem to be unsound in some cases, but I know you feel the same way about me.

I was afraid you thought it meant love of logic. By logophile I mean I am somebody who attaches great importance to the use of accurate terminology to describe things. I don't claim to be the perfect word-user, but I daresay I am much better than many people in NSG.


I'm glad you acknowledge your use of religion, and its role as coping mechanism. But please note that you've used several scriptural citations that DO make use of rules and dogma, and you've claimed Christianity has no rules.Mm...here it comes to a very delicate theological balance between "dogma" and "rules".


*NOTE: Unnecessary in the sense of your own train analogy. As you yourself show, there are other ways to arrive at a place. The train is just one method, and it could have been done in other ways. The train is thus one option, but is not necessary for travel, just as Christianity is one option for coping mechanism, but is not necessary for many.
That is assuming the feet, the car, the bicycle, the bus, the boat, and the train all end up in the same place. All of these things move you - but as far as I have observed and experienced, the train gets you the furthest - if humans needed a coping mechanism - and I believe they do - then Christianity is the best coping mechanism as far as I have observed and experienced.

By the way, can you please define what you mean by a "coping mechanism"? Eating is also a "mechanism" to cope with our need for food. Breathing is "coping mechanism" for our need of air.

Yes but unlike today were the literacy rate is over 95% in developed countries, back in those days many of the stories were passed by word of mouth, and there would have been some Chinese whispers which would have changed the story and eventually was written down by someone who had the ability to write. It is one thing to say that Jesus was not the Son of God and all the miracles he performed were entirely false, it is another thing to say entirely that there was no man who called himself Jesus walking around, and when we point to another source other than the bible you claim it is folly. Reminds me of those people who claim that the world is only 6000 years old despite being shown evidence to the contrary.

You don't allow for the fact that the Jesus story takes place in one of the hotspots of the day. Part of the Roman Empire, home to a educated Jewish population, and an educated Greek population - on the crossroads of international trade.

We have allusions to several 'messiah' figures wandering in that area, at about that time. The name 'Jesus' is a Hellenisation of the same root as Joshua... hardly an uncommon name.

Is it possible there was someone called 'Jesus' (or Jewish equivalent)? Sure. Is it possible there were messianic figures in the area at the time? Sure. Can we - therefore - conclude that the Biblical stories are based on a real person(Miracles or no)? No - we don't have that kind of evidence.

More likely, the 'Jesus' stories are the same kind of mythic accretion we see in the cases of King Arthur, or Robin Hood... collections of local stories, eventually attached to one central figure (who might or might not have been a real person).

I'm not saying non-scripture sources are folly. I'm saying they weren't written even within the lifetime of possible witnesses, much less by people who could have been witnesses themselves. Hell - even Paul was too late to see Jesus' earthly ministry.

So - the question becomes- what are the evidences we have WORTH? Josephus makes fleeting reference, and wiser scholars than I have argued MOST of the salient passages were added centuries later. Tacitus makes fundamental errors, and refers to "Chrestus"... which MIGHT be an alternate version of "Christus", could be the contextual name of some other figure, or could be the actual name of someone. And those are the earliest and 'best' sources there are to confirm the scripture... written a century later, by people who weren't there.

What would you consider evidence? I am asking you this if the passages from Exodus where not a part of the bible and found during archaeological diggings, which mentioned it would you then believe that it was built?

Not everything in the Bible is true and 100% accurate, but some things are, now who knows if the Jews built a box and claimed that it proved that it was God giving them the right to invade other peoples land, and that they were the chosen ones. Please GnI take the Old Testament as a recording of the Jewish History, remember it is not really a passage from God but some of it is writings on the history of the Jews, with a strong Jewish bias, so when read it read it objectively and recognise the type of person who wrote it and the world they lived in.

I ask for my evidence to be corroborated. I like to see primary sources. I like to see sources from independent, contemporary witnesses. I like to see witness testimony, rather than hearsay.

As a consequence, I discount a lot of written evidence... and the more outlandish the written claim, the more evidence I require to consider it viable.

So - much of the Hebrew Scripture, I consider to be fairytales. Not necessarily entirely untrue, but based on germs of truth, rather than being a verbatim account. There is an Egypt - I accept that based on the evidence. At some times, the Egyptians were slaveholders - again, this I can corroborate. The Exodus of the Hebrews? Where is the corroboration?

See what I mean?

I never said that it was about the miracles did I? Or did you just read in my post what you wanted to read? I said that they were contemporary writers who wrote that there was a man called Jesus, as I said it is one thing to say that the miracles did not happen and that he wasn't the son of God, but another thing to say that they was a man called Jesus walking around Jerusalem

There could have been hundreds of men called Jesus around Jerusalem, around that time.

Why assume that any/all mentions of a 'Jesus' refer to one particular one?

I ask for my evidence to be corroborated. I like to see primary sources. I like to see sources from independent, contemporary witnesses. I like to see witness testimony, rather than hearsay.

As a consequence, I discount a lot of written evidence... and the more outlandish the written claim, the more evidence I require to consider it viable.

So - much of the Hebrew Scripture, I consider to be fairytales. Not necessarily entirely untrue, but based on germs of truth, rather than being a verbatim account. There is an Egypt - I accept that based on the evidence. At some times, the Egyptians were slaveholders - again, this I can corroborate. The Exodus of the Hebrews? Where is the corroboration?

See what I mean?

Can you corroborate that the Hebrews were slaves to the Egyptians, if so I would like to see it. Yes a lot of what is in the Hebrew Scripture is unture, but there would be some element of truth behind it, it is like a myth most of it is rubbish that has been added on to it over the years and Chinese whispers have taken place but the basic elements may have happened. I could also go on about a lot of what is in thee Jewish Scriptures and point out obvious bias as it was writtern by Jews (surely you won't deny that), but I wont at this stage.

Now as you want witness testimony, that would mean that you hold a lot of stuff that happened over 2000 years ago hell there would even be stuff only 1500 years ago that you wouldn't believe to be true, throughout the world not to have happened because it is mealy people writing on what they believe to have happened.

I believe I have answered it already: the Bible validates and explains everything as far as I am able to observe and experience, which is why I referred to the verses.
It does not matter thát it's getting explained, it matters if it's the correct explanation. There are hundreds maybe thousands of different explanations for many things concerning the origin of this planet for example.

I almost believe that I'm the more scientific person out of us. I at least provided a concrete evidence of observation in my realm of intellect of how I came to believe in Christianity. You are still floating about in trying to establish a universal theory where there can be no theory without any evidence or examples of observation.
It's not an emperical observation, thus not scientific ;)


We can. Of course non-religious people can love - it is an innate human condition. But so far, my experience with the book and my family have shown that it is possible for us to love in a better way than others. Unless I can find, or you can show me, a non-religious family that can love better than what I have experienced, I am going to stick with my point.
Your experience is not that important, since it's véry narrow and obviously colored towards your own situation. How can "love" be "better" anyway? Since when is love something universal, and the same for you and me?

That is assuming the feet, the car, the bicycle, the bus, the boat, and the train all end up in the same place. All of these things move you - but as far as I have observed and experienced, the train gets you the furthest - if humans needed a coping mechanism - and I believe they do - then Christianity is the best coping mechanism as far as I have observed and experienced.

By the way, can you please define what you mean by a "coping mechanism"? Eating is also a "mechanism" to cope with our need for food. Breathing is "coping mechanism" for our need of air.
Hundreds of million, maybe billions of people disagree with you on that. Why would either you be right, or they be wrong (note: I'm not advocating a tirany by majority here).

You don't allow for the fact that the Jesus story takes place in one of the hotspots of the day. Part of the Roman Empire, home to a educated Jewish population, and an educated Greek population - on the crossroads of international trade.

We have allusions to several 'messiah' figures wandering in that area, at about that time. The name 'Jesus' is a Hellenisation of the same root as Joshua... hardly an uncommon name.

Is it possible there was someone called 'Jesus' (or Jewish equivalent)? Sure. Is it possible there were messianic figures in the area at the time? Sure. Can we - therefore - conclude that the Biblical stories are based on a real person(Miracles or no)? No - we don't have that kind of evidence.

More likely, the 'Jesus' stories are the same kind of mythic accretion we see in the cases of King Arthur, or Robin Hood... collections of local stories, eventually attached to one central figure (who might or might not have been a real person).

I'm not saying non-scripture sources are folly. I'm saying they weren't written even within the lifetime of possible witnesses, much less by people who could have been witnesses themselves. Hell - even Paul was too late to see Jesus' earthly ministry.

So - the question becomes- what are the evidences we have WORTH? Josephus makes fleeting reference, and wiser scholars than I have argued MOST of the salient passages were added centuries later. Tacitus makes fundamental errors, and refers to "Chrestus"... which MIGHT be an alternate version of "Christus", could be the contextual name of some other figure, or could be the actual name of someone. And those are the earliest and 'best' sources there are to confirm the scripture... written a century later, by people who weren't there.

So what you are saying is that they may have been a person or persons which has some basis on the what is in the Bible?

I am saying that as you mentioned Robin Hood and King Arthur, I for one believe that they may have been a king Arthur, no not the mystical being that are in the stories but a King of Wessex or some other part of England that was called Artur or a gaelic name which interprets to the same thing, now a lot of it is myth and legend, but that is not to say that he wasn't around, now I know you will refuse to believe stories passed down from generation to generation, regardless of the fact that not every one knew how to write and back then the stories held by the older people in the village that passed it down to the next generation. I suppose you wouldn't believe what someone told me that happened to them today because it is only hearsay, and I would agree with you that bits may be left out or added on or exaggarated but the fact remains is that the basic element happened

There could have been hundreds of men called Jesus around Jerusalem, around that time.

Why assume that any/all mentions of a 'Jesus' refer to one particular one?

Who is assuming I am perfectly willing to accept that, and eventually they decided to bring each of the parables these Jesus' said together and assign it under one name.

It does not matter thát it's getting explained, it matters if it's the correct explanation. There are hundreds maybe thousands of different explanations for many things concerning the origin of this planet for example.

You tempt me, don't you? But since this is short I shall reply.

I don't think humans will ever come up with one "correct" explanation, which gives me the freedom to choose which explanation is more correct than others.

It's not an emperical observation, thus not scientific ;)
I didn't say it was "scientific". I said it was "more scientific" than what he/she was offering - unless you believe something is either scientific or not scientific, which I don't.



Your experience is not that important, since it's véry narrow and obviously colored towards your own situation. How can "love" be "better" anyway? Since when is love something universal, and the same for you and me?

My experience is not that important to what?


Hundreds of million, maybe billions of people disagree with you on that. Why would either you be right, or they be wrong (note: I'm not advocating a tirany by majority here).
That's fine - I even encourage it. If I want the right to disagree I must also accept the possibility of being disagreed.

The entire point of this is not to get you to agree. The entire point of this is...just to express what I think. Nothing more.

Can you corroborate that the Hebrews were slaves to the Egyptians, if so I would like to see it. Yes a lot of what is in the Hebrew Scripture is unture, but there would be some element of truth behind it, it is like a myth most of it is rubbish that has been added on to it over the years and Chinese whispers have taken place but the basic elements may have happened. I could also go on about a lot of what is in thee Jewish Scriptures and point out obvious bias as it was writtern by Jews (surely you won't deny that), but I wont at this stage.

Now as you want witness testimony, that would mean that you hold a lot of stuff that happened over 2000 years ago hell there would even be stuff only 1500 years ago that you wouldn't believe to be true, throughout the world not to have happened because it is mealy people writing on what they believe to have happened.

I have my doubts about stuff that happened even in the recent past, unless there is good evidence to support. I'm all the more skeptical when the events are claimed to have happened in places and times remote and obscure.

It doesn't mean I automatically consider everything lies. I just don't necessarily believe what I'm told.

Example - the Jewish Exodus. The Hebrew scripture records Hebrew captivity under tyrannical Egyptian pharaohs, and their eventual win to victory over overwhelming odds due to a combination of brave leadership and divine intervention. The Egyptian records fail to mention the alleged ringleader, the escaping slave nation... or any divine contests. Considering that we have Egyptian records for incidents as trivial as how many amphorae of wine were used in such-and-such a feast, this seems a remarkable oversight.

On the other hand, there are records of a Semitic people invading Egypt, taking control of a large portion, and being eventually forced out by a 'native' rebellion. We even have evidence of these 'Hyksos' Pharaohs (unusual because, like the Hebrews of the scripture, they created no monuments).

Conflicting stories? What to believe? Is it possible the OT slaves were actually conquerors licking their wounds after being driven out? Is it possible the Hyksos pharaohs are an unrelated Semitic people, and the Hebrews co-opted their history, and embroidered it a little? Is it possible that the Hebrews were really slaves under Egyptian rule, and - for some reason - this is the one big event Egypt chose not to record?

We can't know for sure. What we can know is there is archeological evidence for some of these stories, and not for others. There is - for example - nothing to support the literal truth of Exodus, as written.

I have my doubts about stuff that happened even in the recent past, unless there is good evidence to support. I'm all the more skeptical when the events are claimed to have happened in places and times remote and obscure.

It doesn't mean I automatically consider everything lies. I just don't necessarily believe what I'm told.

Example - the Jewish Exodus. The Hebrew scripture records Hebrew captivity under tyrannical Egyptian pharaohs, and their eventual win to victory over overwhelming odds due to a combination of brave leadership and divine intervention. The Egyptian records fail to mention the alleged ringleader, the escaping slave nation... or any divine contests. Considering that we have Egyptian records for incidents as trivial as how many amphorae of wine were used in such-and-such a feast, this seems a remarkable oversight.

On the other hand, there are records of a Semitic people invading Egypt, taking control of a large portion, and being eventually forced out by a 'native' rebellion. We even have evidence of these 'Hyksos' Pharaohs (unusual because, like the Hebrews of the scripture, they created no monuments).

Conflicting stories? What to believe? Is it possible the OT slaves were actually conquerors licking their wounds after being driven out? Is it possible the Hyksos pharaohs are an unrelated Semitic people, and the Hebrews co-opted their history, and embroidered it a little? Is it possible that the Hebrews were really slaves under Egyptian rule, and - for some reason - this is the one big event Egypt chose not to record?

We can't know for sure. What we can know is there is archeological evidence for some of these stories, and not for others. There is - for example - nothing to support the literal truth of Exodus, as written.

I'm not disagreeing with your arguments here, but you do seem more willing to believe the Egyptian records as written than the Hebrew ones... I'd just like to point out that, especially if they were the vanquished in the tale, the Egyptian bias would also modify their version.

So what you are saying is that they may have been a person or persons which has some basis on the what is in the Bible?

I am saying that as you mentioned Robin Hood and King Arthur, I for one believe that they may have been a king Arthur, no not the mystical being that are in the stories but a King of Wessex or some other part of England that was called Artur or a gaelic name which interprets to the same thing, now a lot of it is myth and legend, but that is not to say that he wasn't around, now I know you will refuse to believe stories passed down from generation to generation, regardless of the fact that not every one knew how to write and back then the stories held by the older people in the village that passed it down to the next generation. I suppose you wouldn't believe what someone told me that happened to them today because it is only hearsay, and I would agree with you that bits may be left out or added on or exaggarated but the fact remains is that the basic element happened

Or not.

A few days ago, in conversation, a workmate discussed a story that took place at a local school. It appears a student, failing his/her exams, decided to commit suicide by placing a pencil in each nostril and smashing his/her face into the desk.

An interesting story - obviously my workmate doesn't actually know the student in question. Indeed, he doesn't know anyone who actually knows the student.

I remember when I was at school (about 20 years ago), and heard exactly the same story, 3000 miles from the same school, and removed in time by two decades. I didn't know the student, either. Or know anyone that knew the student.

Does that mean this event has NEVER happened? Hard to say for sure. Does it mean this story MUST be true? No - it certainly doesn't mean that. But the story perpetuates, re-occurs, and evolves... without ever needing to be based on a real person or event.

Who is assuming I am perfectly willing to accept that, and eventually they decided to bring each of the parables these Jesus' said together and assign it under one name.

You discussed a real Jesus walking the strets of Jerusalem. That's why I phrased my response as I did. There might never have been 'a' real Jesus, at all. What we call Jesus could be any manner of story seeds... folktales coalescing around a conveniently Jewish name... Buddhist theology wrapped in a convenient kosher wrapping... a collection of stories about real people in and around that palce and time... a completel work of fiction.

We just don't know. And that's not a good enough reason to assume the literal existence of a central figure.

I'm not disagreeing with your arguments here, but you do seem more willing to believe the Egyptian records as written than the Hebrew ones... I'd just like to point out that, especially if they were the vanquished in the tale, the Egyptian bias would also modify their version.

I wasn't preferring one set of records over any other. I was saying the physical evidence is more likely to support one of the Hyksos pharaoh theories than the Exodus theory.

But - on reflection - I might attach more significance to Egyptian records, simply because Egyptian records tend to be so... academic. The Hebrew Scriptures fit an agenda (and were written much later... another good point to bear in mind).

Buddhist theology wrapped in a convenient kosher wrapping...

You call THAT kosher?
The majority of Jews would disagree with you there, I believe.
But I do agree with the basic premise, that not even a base person is necessary

I wasn't preferring one set of records over any other. I was saying the physical evidence is more likely to support one of the Hyksos pharaoh theories than the Exodus theory.

But - on reflection - I might attach more significance to Egyptian records, simply because Egyptian records tend to be so... academic. The Hebrew Scriptures fit an agenda (and were written much later... another good point to bear in mind).

OK. I can work with that. However, I am still somewhat resistant to believing the Hyksos theory... mainly because (afaik) the records were written by a source who would have been biased.
Which, I suppose, supports your basic argument against believing much at all... and I do agree with that.

You call THAT kosher?
The majority of Jews would disagree with you there, I believe.
But I do agree with the basic premise, that not even a base person is necessary

Kosher-ish. :) At least he's a good Jewish boy.

OK. I can work with that. However, I am still somewhat resistant to believing the Hyksos theory... mainly because (afaik) the records were written by a source who would have been biased.
Which, I suppose, supports your basic argument against believing much at all... and I do agree with that.

I actually presented two Hyksos theories there... one where the Exodus story is a cover for conquerors getting handed their asses after a period of occupation, and one where the Exodus story is swiped wholesale from another Semitic people - the actual Hyksos - by a Semitic people (the Hebrews) who were never even there.

All sources are likely to be biased, which is why I like corroboration. It's also why I like material evidence - or, in the case of the Hyksos pharaohs, the loud and overbearing presence of NO material evidence.

I'm inclined to set some store in Egyptian records. They had a habit of describing even the unpleasant stuff. I'm not staking the farm on any of the stories, though. :)

Kosher-ish. :) At least he's a good Jewish boy.

good jewish boy? The one who's previously orthodox followers are treated as dead by their families? :confused:
but definitely more acceptable than straight-out Buddhism...

I actually presented two Hyksos theories there... one where the Exodus story is a cover for conquerors getting handed their asses after a period of occupation, and one where the Exodus story is swiped wholesale from another Semitic people - the actual Hyksos - by a Semitic people (the Hebrews) who were never even there.

All sources are likely to be biased, which is why I like corroboration. It's also why I like material evidence - or, in the case of the Hyksos pharaohs, the loud and overbearing presence of NO material evidence.

I'm inclined to set some store in Egyptian records. They had a habit of describing even the unpleasant stuff. I'm not staking the farm on any of the stories, though. :)

makes sense... I like that

good jewish boy? The one who's previously orthodox followers are treated as dead by their families? :confused:
but definitely more acceptable than straight-out Buddhism...

Well, he was probably circumcised, and we're told he went to Temple....

Of course, that whole 'falling foul of false prophecy' thing, and being party to breaking the prime commandment... those little trifles might count against him a fraction.

makes sense... I like that

It's the way it has to be, for me. I can't reconcile accepting something just because 'everyone says it's true', or because it would be nice/easy/convenient. Sure, there's a lot I have to admit to just not knowing... but I kind of like it that way. :)

Well, he was probably circumcised, and we're told he went to Temple....

Of course, that whole 'falling foul of false prophecy' thing, and being party to breaking the prime commandment... those little trifles might count against him a fraction.

:D
ok... that works

Ever heard of Moses?

As I wrote in a previous post:

Moses didn't write Genesis, even if he existed. Genesis 14:14 reads:

When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

But Dan didn't exist until after the conquest of Canaan (Judges 18:27-29) so that verse can't have existed until after that time, long after Moses' death (again, assuming he existed...)

As I wrote in a previous post:

Moses came after Abraham.

Does that mean he's a somebody pretending to be insipid to discredit his ostensible position?

'Cause I'd buy that.

That works too.I'm reasonably sure you know already, but in case you don't it's a reference to Jesussaves's epic response to being called a parody.

Moses came after Abraham.

What? Did you even read what I said? Of course I know Moses came after Abraham in the Biblical chronology, try reading the actual argument:

Gen 14:14 (NIV) When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

But Dan didn't exist until after the conquest of Canaan (Judges 18:27-29) so that verse can't have existed until after that time, long after Moses' death (again, assuming he existed...)

The city of Dan did not exist until after Moses' death, as it was built on the ruins of a Canaanite city, so Genesis can't have been written before the existence of Dan and so it can't have been written by Moses. It doesn't get much more clear cut.

What? Did you even read what I said? Of course I know Moses came after Abraham in the Biblical chronology, try reading the actual argument:



The city of Dan did not exist until after Moses' death, as it was built on the ruins of a Canaanite city, so Genesis can't have been written before the existence of Dan and so it can't have been written by Moses. It doesn't get much more clear cut.

What is the verse again?

What is the verse again?Gen 14:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2014:14%20&version=31)

If that verse had been written by Moses then Moses had knowledge of events after his own lifetime, such as the foundation of Dan.

Gen 14:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%2014:14%20&version=31)

If that verse had been written by Moses then Moses had knowledge of events after his own lifetime, such as the foundation of Dan.
It says the TOWN of Dan not City. Back then City and Town were different.

It says the TOWN of Dan not City. Back then City and Town were different.That is irrelevant. No place or area named Dan existed in Moses' lifetime. And the area allotted to the tribe of Dan is not where the tribe later actually settled.

That is irrelevant. No place or area named Dan existed in Moses' lifetime.

Then how did Abraham lead 318 men there?

It says the TOWN of Dan not City. Back then City and Town were different.

The Hebrew verse doesn't mention town or city, it only says he traveled up to Dan. And Dan is a name of a place... Which apparently (I didn't research this and so don't know) didn't exist until after Moses.

That is irrelevant. No place or area named Dan existed in Moses' lifetime. And the area allotted to the tribe of Dan is not where the tribe later actually settled.

That we know of!

[QUOTE=Benevulon;13725948] (I didn't research this and so don't know)QUOTE]

Oh so you're arguing without researching?

(I didn't research this and so don't know)

Oh so you're arguing without researching?

Why not? You're arguing without thinking.

Then how did Abraham lead 318 men there?That was not the question. The question was how Moses could have written about a place that did not exist in his lifetime but much later. What Abraham did with 318 men is of no relevance here. The point here is that Moses is not the author of this passage.

That we know of!Context?

That was not the question. The question was how Moses could have written about a place that did not exist in his lifetime but much later. What Abraham did with 318 men is of no relevance here. The point here is that Moses is not the author of this passage.

I'm just typing what the bible says.

That was not the question. The question was how Moses could have written about a place that did not exist in his lifetime but much later. What Abraham did with 318 men is of no relevance here. The point here is that Moses is not the author of this passage.

Context?

There's no town of dan that we know of.

I'm just typing what the bible says.And you present it as accurate. Which it obviously is not.

There's no town of dan that we know of.Dan is not a town. It is an area that is today in Lebanon and Syria. However the area originally allotted to the tribe of Dan was in the southern coastal plain, but that area was inaccessible to the Israelites.

[QUOTE=Benevulon;13725948] (I didn't research this and so don't know)QUOTE]

Oh so you're arguing without researching?

Well, taking a quick look, at seems that the place was only called Dan after the Tribe of Dan settled in the area. That of course happened after Moses died and the Israelites killed off all the Canaanites and took the land for themselves. So how could Moses know that in time the place will be called Dan? Why call it so at that time?

And you present it as accurate. Which it obviously is not.

So you say. We'll see who's right when you die.

[QUOTE=Tucker Island;13725954]

Well, taking a quick look, at seems that the place was only called Dan after the Tribe of Dan settled in the area. That of course happened after Moses died and the Israelites killed off all the Canaanites and took the land for themselves. So how could Moses know that in time the place will be called Dan? Why call it so at that time?

That's probably what moses means. THE TRIBE OF DAN!

[QUOTE=Benevulon;13725970]

That's probably what moses means. THE TRIBE OF DAN!

... So Abraham followed the kidnappers or whatever until reaching Dan's territory, which wasn't Dan's until AFTER Moses died?

[QUOTE=Tucker Island]

... So Abraham followed the kidnappers or whatever until reaching Dan's territory, which wasn't Dan's until AFTER Moses died?

I guess. I mean translations can add some places so that we can understand where things are.

I guess. I mean translations can add some places so that we can understand where things are.

So who translated the OT from Hebrew to Hebrew?

That's probably what moses means. THE TRIBE OF DAN!The tribe of Dan was with Moses while he was still alive, camping east of the Jordan. And Moses did not know where that tribe would settle after his own death. Since Moses never entered Canaan he had no knowledge of the political setup there that would keep the tribe of Dan from accessing the territory allotted to them.

That's probably what moses means. THE TRIBE OF DAN!

... So Abraham followed the kidnappers or whatever until reaching Dan's territory, which wasn't Dan's until AFTER Moses died?

Now you've got it!

... So Abraham followed the kidnappers or whatever until reaching Dan's territory, which wasn't Dan's until AFTER Moses died?
Hey, some folks even believe that Abraham the Chaldean originated from Ur, although that place was already in ruins in Abraham's lifetime and the Chaldeans only entered southern Mesopotamia after Abraham's lifetime to have the region named after themselves...


PS: There is something broken with the quoting...

Hey, some folks even believe that Abraham the Chaldean originated from Ur, although that place was already in ruins in Abraham's lifetime and the Chaldeans only entered southern Mesopotamia after Abraham's lifetime to have the region named after themselves...


PS: There is something broken with the quoting...

Actually, I think this is evidence for Abraham being a time traveler! He chased after those kidnappers not only through space, but through time as well! A miracle if ever there was one.

Actually, I think this is evidence for Abraham being a time traveler! He chased after those kidnappers not only through space, but through time as well! A miracle if ever there was one.All that Abraham was, was a fraud. He got rich because he sent his wife into prostitution at pharaoh's court.

All that Abraham was, was a fraud. He got rich because he sent his wife into prostitution at pharaoh's court.

A time-traveling fraud. And who knows, maybe he made it so that he was the pharaoh. That way there'd be no prostitution. It was actually the first recorded instance of cosplay.

Actually, I think this is evidence for Abraham being a time traveler! He chased after those kidnappers not only through space, but through time as well! A miracle if ever there was one.
You'd be surprised how well time travel explains the biblical miracles.

Actually, you probably wouldn't, since I've probably already told you (which, in my time line, I haven't done yet, but I'm going to go back and tell you in your past just to create this absurd non-linear chronology).

The point is: as far as I have observed from the families of friends around me, no, the quality of love is higher in my family than in theirs. I do not claim to be able to judge everybody's hearts as you seem to imply you are able to: I am only able to judge from what I see, not what I do not see and assume to be able to see.

Yet you freely draw very broad inferences from very small data sets (for one who touts his scientific superiority). I admit I am only published in a very small area of solid state physics, but I at least know to gather more sizeable data sets, not assume global truths from anecdotal observation.

But since you again claim not to assume, just be sure not to assume that those without religion aren't able to love just as well as you, and go just as "far" on their means of metaphorical travel.


My point is that faith is the final piece in the train that leads anyone to believe in anything. Religious people have chosen a specific religion to validate their observations of the world. Non-religious people have chosen an alternative standard of faith. The difference isn't "faith". The difference is "choice of faith".

Some non-religious folks don't assert specific certainty about many things, and so don't need any faith regarding it. They just withhold judgement until more is known.


I believe I have answered it already: the Bible validates and explains everything as far as I am able to observe and experience, which is why I referred to the verses.

In no way have you addressed how the Bible is accurate regarding the human condition moreso than any other book including fiction to any extent other than personal anecdotal evidence, which others could use just as easily to "validate" the Koran, or Moby Dick, on its insight and accuracy to human nature.



Nope. You are trying to find a "scientific", universal theory of love, trying to get factors that apply to all in, and anything that doesn't apply to all out. But I'm not doing that. What I am trying to say is that as far as I have observed in my surroundings, Chrsitianity has made a difference in loving families. The onus of proving otherwise (e.g. raising specific examples), not just conjecturing on a universal theory, lies on you now.

I have just as many observations of religious families (and non religious ones) being less loving and abusive than my own, and non religious ones being more so. My observations are just as valid as yours, and support the opposite conclusion. Neither of us have enough data points to really support a categorical conclusion.

And no, I posit no "scientific", universal theory of love, I simply suggest that your claim that only religious families love "more" or "properly" might just be in some cases, and there are just as many where the opposite is true.


I almost believe that I'm the more scientific person out of us. I at least provided a concrete evidence of observation in my realm of intellect of how I came to believe in Christianity. You are still floating about in trying to establish a universal theory where there can be no theory without any evidence or examples of observation.

Again, you make assumptions (that you claim not to make). I present no theory on love (it would be a hypothesis at this state, anyway, logophile). I simply point out that there are just many observations that counter your conclusion.


I see. I apologise for my poorly defined use of "dogma". What I originally felt that you were saying was that Christians are only begrudgingly forced to love others because "God said so". If you now clarify what you meant then I say: yes, Christians can only love the way they love because of the belief in this dogma.

And others can love without it (and in my observations, just as much, not less).


Ah...here is where my view becomes more complicated. For certain religions, like mine, you can only use it as a cultural and familial utility and coping mechanism only when you recognise it as a kind of truth. Does that make sense?

A kind of truth. Convoluted more than complicated.


We can. Of course non-religious people can love - it is an innate human condition. But so far, my experience with the book and my family have shown that it is possible for us to love in a better way than others. Unless I can find, or you can show me, a non-religious family that can love better than what I have experienced, I am going to stick with my point.

I hope your experiences broaden you so that you can see that love can be just as deep without dogma.


In a way it isn't biologically necessary, no. If you want to whittle down to the very basics of human survival, no. But it makes the experience much better - as far as my personal observation and experience are concerned.


I staunchly refuse to speculate about what could have happened but did not happen. All I establish is that it happened, and it's proved to be brilliant, and so I'm going to continue to let it happen, and tell people about how good it was when it happened.

I was afraid you thought it meant love of logic. By logophile I mean I am somebody who attaches great importance to the use of accurate terminology to describe things. I don't claim to be the perfect word-user, but I daresay I am much better than many people in NSG.

Mm...here it comes to a very delicate theological balance between "dogma" and "rules".

Your verses revealed SEVERAL rules (i.e., what MUST be done to inherit eternal life, etc, et al), yet you claimed Christianity had no rules. Your delicate balance is, yet again, a place where your usage of words and their resultant claims are demonstrably counter to even your evidence, logophile.


That is assuming the feet, the car, the bicycle, the bus, the boat, and the train all end up in the same place. All of these things move you - but as far as I have observed and experienced, the train gets you the furthest - if humans needed a coping mechanism - and I believe they do - then Christianity is the best coping mechanism as far as I have observed and experienced.

So, you are changing your analogy (which clearly originally claimed that a train was just one method to arrive at A PLACE, now you are claiming a train gets you farther, to what is therefore by definition a different place).

Which means when I originally stated that you were claiming that Christianity is the ONLY way (in your view) to arrive at that place (that further place), and you stated (via your train analogy) that you were NOT claiming that, only that it what was ONE way, you now contradict yourself.


By the way, can you please define what you mean by a "coping mechanism"? Eating is also a "mechanism" to cope with our need for food. Breathing is "coping mechanism" for our need of air.

Poor comparison. A coping mechanism helps you to deal with something that others can deal with without the mechanism. No person can deal without food or air.

Logophile, a coping mechanism is something you need, a crutch, to cope with and deal with your life, that others can function without.

If you choose to respond on this one, I'm going to let you have the last word. I don't see much opportunity for productive discourse, given a number of claims you've made and how they clearly contradict even your own verses that are rife with rules.

I will read any response, out of respect for offering you the last word, but I won't respond. Take care.

That we know of!

You're missing the point - if the area called "Dan" wasn't called Dan during Moses' life, then he CAN'T have been the person who wrote the text.

It must have been written at a later date, AFTER the area was known as "Dan" - which means... yep, different author.

We already know Moses can't have literally written the entire Pentatauch, since his own death and funeral are described therein.

You're missing the point - if the area called "Dan" wasn't called Dan during Moses' life, then he CAN'T have been the person who wrote the text.

It must have been written at a later date, AFTER the area was known as "Dan" - which means... yep, different author.

We already know Moses can't have literally written the entire Pentatauch, since his own death and funeral are described therein.

Thank you.

Or not.

A few days ago, in conversation, a workmate discussed a story that took place at a local school. It appears a student, failing his/her exams, decided to commit suicide by placing a pencil in each nostril and smashing his/her face into the desk.

An interesting story - obviously my workmate doesn't actually know the student in question. Indeed, he doesn't know anyone who actually knows the student.

I remember when I was at school (about 20 years ago), and heard exactly the same story, 3000 miles from the same school, and removed in time by two decades. I didn't know the student, either. Or know anyone that knew the student.

Does that mean this event has NEVER happened? Hard to say for sure. Does it mean this story MUST be true? No - it certainly doesn't mean that. But the story perpetuates, re-occurs, and evolves... without ever needing to be based on a real person or event.

Well how about this than, my Grandfather was a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, a member of the ALP he voted against the party line on a conscious vote and thus subsequently was kicked out of the party. Now then they only recording of this is that there was a man that had the exact same name as my Grandfather and that he ceased to become a member in the 1950's. The rest of the story is not recorded anywhere now I have only heard this as hearsay who heard it from an original witness. Now that I have written it down does that mean the story isn't true? I know you won't believe this story as the only evidence of him being dismissed is my say so and the fact that a few generations later it is written down, and not as you like to say witness testimony. The fact remains, however, that the story above is true.

And yes maybe there was no King Arthur at all, then where did the story orginate we know from other writings Geffory of Monmouth for example that the story of King Arthur as it has evolved into today is not what the original story was all about.

This:

I'm just typing what the bible says.

Means this:

Why not? You're arguing without thinking.


So you say. We'll see who's right when you die.


Who says I intend to die?

epic lulz

Im sigging this just because imaging a lawyer say this is the funniest thing I can think of.

Meno, Gorgias, Phaedrus, Crito, Euthyphro, Lysis, Charmides, Apology, Republic.

That's a start...

The Epic of Gilgamesh.

Moses lived during the time that the pyramids were being built.

Please, please for the love of God tell me you dont believe that the pyramids were built by the Hebrew slaves? Especially considering that there were no slaves in Egypt during the Old Kingdom, which is the only time Egypt really built pyramids?

Also, we have the Jews (if they were even there) being in Egypt during the reign of Ramses II. The Egyptians no longer were building pyramids during the 19th Dynasty. So, Mosses was NOT alive during the construction of the pyramids.


I should also explain the "if they were even there" comment. It is not documented in any Egyptian primary sources that there was ever a mass Hebrew exodus from Egypt or even a mention of a man named "Mosses". Which is curious, as the reign of Ramses II is without a doubt the most thorougly and well documented period of Ancient Egyptian History.

Well how about this than, my Grandfather was a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, a member of the ALP he voted against the party line on a conscious vote and thus subsequently was kicked out of the party. Now then they only recording of this is that there was a man that had the exact same name as my Grandfather and that he ceased to become a member in the 1950's. The rest of the story is not recorded anywhere now I have only heard this as hearsay who heard it from an original witness. Now that I have written it down does that mean the story isn't true? I know you won't believe this story as the only evidence of him being dismissed is my say so and the fact that a few generations later it is written down, and not as you like to say witness testimony. The fact remains, however, that the story above is true.

And yes maybe there was no King Arthur at all, then where did the story orginate we know from other writings Geffory of Monmouth for example that the story of King Arthur as it has evolved into today is not what the original story was all about.

He never said that having something written down means it's false...
And the two are not the same. While you don't have proof that your grandfather was dismissed, you have quite a bit of evidence that he existed (I assume). King Arthur, however, and Jesus, have significantly less evidence of that sort.
Also, just because the story evolved from something does not mean that the thing from which evolved was true. If Geoffrey of Monmouth said that the current King Arthur tale is obviously not the original, that has no bearing on the subject, as he is saying nothing whatsoever about the original.

Example - the Jewish Exodus. The Hebrew scripture records Hebrew captivity under tyrannical Egyptian pharaohs, and their eventual win to victory over overwhelming odds due to a combination of brave leadership and divine intervention. The Egyptian records fail to mention the alleged ringleader, the escaping slave nation... or any divine contests. Considering that we have Egyptian records for incidents as trivial as how many amphorae of wine were used in such-and-such a feast, this seems a remarkable oversight.

On the other hand, there are records of a Semitic people invading Egypt, taking control of a large portion, and being eventually forced out by a 'native' rebellion. We even have evidence of these 'Hyksos' Pharaohs (unusual because, like the Hebrews of the scripture, they created no monuments).

Conflicting stories? What to believe? Is it possible the OT slaves were actually conquerors licking their wounds after being driven out? Is it possible the Hyksos pharaohs are an unrelated Semitic people, and the Hebrews co-opted their history, and embroidered it a little? Is it possible that the Hebrews were really slaves under Egyptian rule, and - for some reason - this is the one big event Egypt chose not to record?

We can't know for sure. What we can know is there is archeological evidence for some of these stories, and not for others. There is - for example - nothing to support the literal truth of Exodus, as written.

I am glad you brought this up and the Semitic invasion is another possible example of what really happened, I hadn't heard that before, and may explain why they walked around the Arabian Peninsula for a long time looking for a another place to invade found modern day Israel and invaded that spot, this time they were more successful.

Yes large parts of the Hebrew Scriptures should be looked at objectively and remember that it was written by Jews a large part on their history, and is written with a Jewish bias. With the supposed slave, another thing you forgot which you may not have heard is that a lot of them did move into Egypt, where from? who knows and while they were living there were not salves at all but may have been viewed as second class citizens after all they went on strike for better pay, they must be the only slaves in history who were paid for their work, not to mention the property they owned. That is correct who knows which is why when I read the Bible I look at it objectively and remember it is written by people for their people the target audience if you will, and they want to read how good they are and why they had to leave Egypt, maybe they left Egypt on their own who knows? I wont believe everything in the Hebrew Scriptures as it says, I do take it as a somewhat bias history, I know you flat out reject everything in it but that's your opinion

I'm not disagreeing with your arguments here, but you do seem more willing to believe the Egyptian records as written than the Hebrew ones... I'd just like to point out that, especially if they were the vanquished in the tale, the Egyptian bias would also modify their version.

Good point, but as the Eqyptian records aren't in the Bible GnI may be more willing to believe them

He never said that having something written down means it's false...
And the two are not the same. While you don't have proof that your grandfather was dismissed, you have quite a bit of evidence that he existed (I assume). King Arthur, however, and Jesus, have significantly less evidence of that sort.
Also, just because the story evolved from something does not mean that the thing from which evolved was true. If Geoffrey of Monmouth said that the current King Arthur tale is obviously not the original, that has no bearing on the subject, as he is saying nothing whatsoever about the original.

Well Geffory of Monmouth wrote his book well before the current tales had even evovled. And he does talk about the original tale, indeed it ios a part of his bookm "A history of the Kings and Queens of England"

No he said that having it written down by someone who heard about the story as it was passed down a generation meant that it couldn't have much credibility and may not be true at all.

Good point, but as the Eqyptian records aren't in the Bible GnI may be more willing to believe them

And theres not really much solid evidence that the Hyksos were the Hebrews.

And, if Exodus really took place under Ramses II, like many historians think it did, then it is far too late for the Hebrews to be the Hyksos.

The Epic of Gilgamesh.



Please, please for the love of God tell me you dont believe that the pyramids were built by the Hebrew slaves? Especially considering that there were no slaves in Egypt during the Old Kingdom, which is the only time Egypt really built pyramids?

Also, we have the Jews (if they were even there) being in Egypt during the reign of Ramses II. The Egyptians no longer were building pyramids during the 19th Dynasty. So, Mosses was NOT alive during the construction of the pyramids.


Who says I intend to die?

:)

Wait your not dying, then you must be God. (Move over LG)

I should also explain the "if they were even there" comment. It is not documented in any Egyptian primary sources that there was ever a mass Hebrew exodus from Egypt or even a mention of a man named "Mosses". Which is curious, as the reign of Ramses II is without a doubt the most thorougly and well documented period of Ancient Egyptian History.

Of course the Old kingdom didn't have salves and the Jews weren't salves at all, for crying out loud they went on strike because they weren't being paid enough. (The only salves in history to be paid) Some of the Old testament is on the Hebrew hisotry written by a Hebrew for Hebrews with an obvious Hebrew bias

Well Geffory of Monmouth wrote his book well before the current tales had even evovled. And he does talk about the original tale, indeed it ios a part of his bookm "A history of the Kings and Queens of England"


Ah... so Geoffrey of Monmouth knows the original tale? Because he was there? Who's to say that his version is any more accurate than the current one?

No he said that having it written down by someone who heard about the story as it was passed down a generation meant that it couldn't have much credibility and may not be true at all.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here about the difference between "may not be true" and "is false."

I have no reason to disbelieve you about your grandfather, but were I doing something which depended on that information, I would be hesitant. Why? Because I believe it is false because his grandson claims it? No. Because I don't believe it true merely because his grandson claims it. Therein lies the difference.

Of course the Old kingdom didn't have salves and the Jews weren't salves at all, for crying out loud they went on strike because they weren't being paid enough. (The only salves in history to be paid) Some of the Old testament is on the Hebrew hisotry written by a Hebrew for Hebrews with an obvious Hebrew bias

Repeat after me.


The Jews. Were. Not. In Egypt. During. The. Old. Kingdom.

The pyramids were built by conscripted Egyptian farmers who worked x amount of time for the state (usually during seasons they werent farming) for pay and government sponsored food and housing during this time.


It is possible the Hebrews were in Egypt (even if the Egyptians have no records of it), but history places them roughly during the time of Ramses II and the 19th Dynasty. Now, in this case if they were really in Egypt, they would have probably been slaves as Ramses II was a ruthless bastard and Egypt did keep slaves during this time. In fact he had whole monuments of his likeness and a whole city named after him built by such slaves. But they werent building pyramids. The Pharohs were long done building pyramids during the time the stories of Mosses take place.

Which brings me to my point. Saying Mosses was alive for the building of the pyramids is truly and utterly fucking stupid.

It says the TOWN of Dan not City. Back then City and Town were different.

Note that you are reading a translation. The Bible was not written in English.

Note that you are reading a translation. The Bible was not written in English.That was a weasel attempt anyways. Whether it is town or city was irrelevant to the question at hand.

Well how about this than, my Grandfather was a member of the NSW Legislative Assembly, a member of the ALP he voted against the party line on a conscious vote and thus subsequently was kicked out of the party. Now then they only recording of this is that there was a man that had the exact same name as my Grandfather and that he ceased to become a member in the 1950's. The rest of the story is not recorded anywhere now I have only heard this as hearsay who heard it from an original witness. Now that I have written it down does that mean the story isn't true? I know you won't believe this story as the only evidence of him being dismissed is my say so and the fact that a few generations later it is written down, and not as you like to say witness testimony. The fact remains, however, that the story above is true.

And yes maybe there was no King Arthur at all, then where did the story orginate we know from other writings Geffory of Monmouth for example that the story of King Arthur as it has evolved into today is not what the original story was all about.

Being written doesn't make it a lie. Being a secondary source... being less-than-contemporary... being from a biased and/or non-independent source... none of those things mean the story MUST be false. Even lacking corroboration doesn't automatically make it untrue.

However, they don't help assure it's truth, either.

I withhold judgement on a lot of things... I rarely just dismiss, but I do doubt a lot. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence I need to accept it.

Repeat after me.


The Jews. Were. Not. In Egypt. During. The. Old. Kingdom.

The pyramids were built by conscripted Egyptian farmers who worked x amount of time for the state (usually during seasons they werent farming) for pay and government sponsored food and housing during this time.


It is possible the Hebrews were in Egypt (even if the Egyptians have no records of it), but history places them roughly during the time of Ramses II and the 19th Dynasty. Now, in this case if they were really in Egypt, they would have probably been slaves as Ramses II was a ruthless bastard and Egypt did keep slaves during this time. In fact he had whole monuments of his likeness and a whole city named after him built by such slaves. But they werent building pyramids. The Pharohs were long done building pyramids during the time the stories of Mosses take place.

Which brings me to my point. Saying Mosses was alive for the building of the pyramids is truly and utterly fucking stupid.

I'm not sure where you got your history. Ramses II wasn't reknowned as a slaveholder at all, and there is no suggestion that Pi-Ramesses was built by slaves. There is evidence that suggests two nations conquered by Egypt came to pay tribute to Ramses at Pi-Ramesses.... but that's about it.

There is also no evidence to connect Hebrew slaves to the other construction projects under Ramses II. Likewise - no evidence of any of the other peculiar details of the Biblical Exodus (No 'moses', no plagues, etc).

I'm not sure where you got your history. Ramses II wasn't reknowned as a slaveholder at all, and there is no suggestion that Pi-Ramesses was built by slaves. There is evidence that suggests two nations conquered by Egypt came to pay tribute to Ramses at Pi-Ramesses.... but that's about it.


I find it difficult to believe that the pyramids could have been built without the equivalent of massive slave labour.

I find it difficult to believe that the pyramids could have been built without the equivalent of massive slave labour.

Good for you.

Relevence?

Of course the Old kingdom didn't have salves and the Jews weren't salves at all, for crying out loud they went on strike because they weren't being paid enough. (The only salves in history to be paid) Some of the Old testament is on the Hebrew hisotry written by a Hebrew for Hebrews with an obvious Hebrew bias

Salves?
Yes, yes, I know, you meant slaves, it was merely a typo. I just found it amusing that you did it throughout the post.

Salves?

i also deny that jews make effective balms

I find it difficult to believe that the pyramids could have been built without the equivalent of massive slave labour.

And your finding it difficult to believe means what to the rest of us?

I find it difficult to believe that the pyramids could have been built without the equivalent of massive slave labour.

My Egyptian history isn't great, but if I understand correctly, the standard procedure for large monuments of that sort involved part-year conscription of Egyptians (mainly farmers, I believe)

thus your equivalent

i also deny that jews make effective balms

:D

i also deny that jews make effective balms

Actually, we're very good for the skin.

i also deny that jews make effective balms

Should I be offended or relieved here?

Should I be offended or relieved here?

Go for both :D

Actually, we're very good for the skin.

So if I rub you all over my body my skin will get softer?

Go for both :D

k...
:eek: How could you SAY that? Racial discrimination! He just insulted me!

But at least he's not gonna break into my house in the middle of the night to soothe his skin...

So if I rub you all over my body my skin will get softer?

Dunno, haven't tested myself out yet. :D

Salves?
Yes, yes, I know, you meant slaves, it was merely a typo. I just found it amusing that you did it throughout the post.

That's right salves, the Jews were not Salves were they?

lol, oops I suppose that's what happens when you rush something.

Actually many people have heard of the Jewish Guilt, and another definition of Salve is to do something in order to feel less guilty, as in to salve one's conscience. There may be something in that.

And I screwed up quoting you I have fixed it up now post 610 from memory.

Ah... so Geoffrey of Monmouth knows the original tale? Because he was there? Who's to say that his version is any more accurate than the current one?

Well as I said, and I know the stories get a bit distorted but a lot of stories were passed down and in some cases still are passed down by word of mouth, from on generation to the next and that is how their history was kept.

There seems to be a bit of confusion here about the difference between "may not be true" and "is false."

I have no reason to disbelieve you about your grandfather, but were I doing something which depended on that information, I would be hesitant. Why? Because I believe it is false because his grandson claims it? No. Because I don't believe it true merely because his grandson claims it. Therein lies the difference.

Good point.

Repeat after me.


The Jews. Were. Not. In Egypt. During. The. Old. Kingdom.

The pyramids were built by conscripted Egyptian farmers who worked x amount of time for the state (usually during seasons they werent farming) for pay and government sponsored food and housing during this time.


It is possible the Hebrews were in Egypt (even if the Egyptians have no records of it), but history places them roughly during the time of Ramses II and the 19th Dynasty. Now, in this case if they were really in Egypt, they would have probably been slaves as Ramses II was a ruthless bastard and Egypt did keep slaves during this time. In fact he had whole monuments of his likeness and a whole city named after him built by such slaves. But they werent building pyramids. The Pharohs were long done building pyramids during the time the stories of Mosses take place.

Which brings me to my point. Saying Mosses was alive for the building of the pyramids is truly and utterly fucking stupid.

I am aware of how the Pyramids were made, I was not claiming that they were slaves at all in fact I was saying that they weren't slaves (or is it salves) but distorted the truth for themselves.

And I wasn't the one that said he was alive during the building of the pyramids, it says they made them work on building projects, which could mean any structure not a pyramid, just like the farmers were conscripted to work on building projects. As I have said Exodus is an interpretation by the Hebrews on what happened and as such is bound to have bias in it

Well as I said, and I know the stories get a bit distorted but a lot of stories were passed down and in some cases still are passed down by word of mouth, from on generation to the next and that is how their history was kept.

But the argument is that there's no way to know what the original was...
There's no way to know how much it has changed, so there's no way of knowing how believable it is.

But the argument is that there's no way to know what the original was...
There's no way to know how much it has changed, so there's no way of knowing how believable it is.

But surely there must have been a King called Arthur or some Gaelic equivalent

But surely there must have been a King called Arthur or some Gaelic equivalent

Based on the frequency of the name, that might be a reasonable supposition, but there's nothing about the stories that requires that.

The grand-father of Arthur was supposed to be the last of the roman rulers (romano-british) in england. And we know such guy existed historically. There is a king Arthur the Bear, who is supposed to be his descendant... this may be the historical Arthur.

Based on the frequency of the name, that might be a reasonable supposition, but there's nothing about the stories that requires that.

Well I am not really talking about everything, such as the Lady of the Lake, put that at some point they was a King, and that he may have brought together a group of knights to be some sort of army I have no idea.

The grand-father of Arthur was supposed to be the last of the roman rulers (romano-british) in england. And we know such guy existed historically. There is a king Arthur the Bear, who is supposed to be his descendant... this may be the historical Arthur.

The question is not whether there was an Arthur... the question is whether you can determine that there was an Arthur based on the modern stories.

Well I am not really talking about everything, such as the Lady of the Lake, put that at some point they was a King, and that he may have brought together a group of knights to be some sort of army I have no idea.

Ok... get vague enough and I'll agree with you. Yes, I believe that at some point there was a king who had an army of knights.

Ok... get vague enough and I'll agree with you. Yes, I believe that at some point there was a king who had an army of knights.

A king known as Arthur, which is what I have been trying to say.

The question is not whether there was an Arthur... the question is whether you can determine that there was an Arthur based on the modern stories.

What about the ancient stories that have been recorded?

A king known as Arthur, which is what I have been trying to say.

but how are we to know that?

but how are we to know that?

Good point, but a king where the name has changed to Arthur but we know that is the person we are referring to, it may have been some Gaelic equivalent, or it may have been close to Arthur such as Arhyr, but that is who we are talking about.

What about the ancient stories that have been recorded?

I believe the original argument was that a generation of word-of-mouth before recording was enough to make it uncertain. So if the Ancient stories are at least a generation removed, then I would argue that you still could not be sure.

Good point, but a king where the name has changed to Arthur but we know that is the person we are referring to, it may have been some Gaelic equivalent, or it may have been close to Arthur such as Arhyr, but that is who we are talking about.

What difference does it make? So there was a king with knights... and Arthur is an Anglicization of a common name of the time... but there didn't HAVE to be a king by a name of that sort for the story to start, is my point

The question is not whether there was an Arthur... the question is whether you can determine that there was an Arthur based on the modern stories.

Well...the answer I think its not. There are thoudsands of stories about Sinbad... but I dont think that means there was an historic Sinbad.

Good for you.

Relevence?

How about common sense, where the alternative theories are even more extreme and bizarre and the simplest explanation is always the best? etc...

Well...the answer I think its not. There are thoudsands of stories about Sinbad... but I dont think that means there was an historic Sinbad.

Thank you. :)

And your finding it difficult to believe means what to the rest of us?

Are you being deliberately dense?

Are you being deliberately dense?

Why should we care that you find it difficult to believe? Do you have anything to provide justification for your scepticism?

Why should we care that you find it difficult to believe? Do you have anything to provide justification for your scepticism?

It's incredibly obvious that I was implying that the idea that the pyramids were not built by slave labour seems impossible simply by common sense, in essence a refutation of the idea that it wasn't. What you're supposed to do is either agree, or provide a reasonable way the pyramids actually can be built without the use of slave labour.

It's incredibly obvious that I was implying that the idea that the pyramids were not built by slave labour seems impossible simply by common sense, in essence a refutation of the idea that it wasn't. What you're supposed to do is either agree, or provide a reasonable way the pyramids actually can be built without the use of slave labour.

But why would it have to be slave labour? Can't things that take a lot of labour be built without slaves? The Chunnel, for instance... was that built with slave labour?

It's incredibly obvious that I was implying that the idea that the pyramids were not built by slave labour seems impossible simply by common sense, in essence a refutation of the idea that it wasn't.
Common sense says that they couldn't have been paid labourers?
What you're supposed to do is either agree, or provide a reasonable way the pyramids actually can be built without the use of slave labour.
Sorry, but that's not how it works, you made the claim, you need to back it up.

But why would it have to be slave labour? Can't things that take a lot of labour be built without slaves? The Chunnel, for instance... was that built with slave labour?

No, it was built with sophisticated mechanical technology, something the Egyptians didn't really have. Although they did have some good technology for their day I'll admit, but I would say it was adequate enough technology to be able to build pyramid without a huge work who worked very long hours and were far more than likely not paid for their work or paid an extremely low amount.

No, it was built with sophisticated mechanical technology, something the Egyptians didn't really have. Although they did have some good technology for their day I'll admit, but I would say it was adequate enough technology to be able to build pyramid without a huge work who worked very long hours and were far more than likely not paid for their work or paid an extremely low amount.

Ok, the technological advantage means machines replace a very many people. So because there were a lot of people involved, therefore they weren't paid? Where is the logical link there?

Wal-Mart, for instance... uses slave labour?

No, it was built with sophisticated mechanical technology, something the Egyptians didn't really have. Although they did have some good technology for their day I'll admit, but I would say it was adequate enough technology to be able to build pyramid without a huge work who worked very long hours and were far more than likely not paid for their work or paid an extremely low amount.

Ah, so your justification is that they're primitives.


Considering the level of precision and skill that was necessary for the construction of the pyramids, that makes it much more likely that it was paid labour rather than slave labour.

Ah, so your justification is that they're primitives.


Considering the level of precision and skill that was necessary for the construction of the pyramids, that makes it much more likely that it was paid labour rather than slave labour.

Skill, by the way, that is on a higher level than the majority of Wal-Mart employees...

Common sense says that they couldn't have been paid labourers?


If you disagree, show reasonable alternatives ffs. Are you knew to NSG or something?


Sorry, but that's not how it works, you made the claim, you need to back it up.

Haha, probably about 5% of all claims on NSG are actually 'backed up', since most claims do not require it (common sense) or cannot be backed up only proven false (like my statement). I did not make a statement intended to be fact and an objective rebuttle of Grave_n_Idles point, I was merely pointing out the absurdity in his statement a.k.a asking him to back his up.

Consider this situation, there is an apple under a tree.
You say that there is no direct evidence that the apple fell from the tree.
I say that it seems impossible that the apple could have come from anywhere else.
If you were extremely annoying you would have said what you're saying now, a.k.a: "prove that it is impossible" something which is impossible to do, so it's an absurd question to ask.
If you weren't extremely annoying you would have said: nonsense, the apple could have just as easily come from the birds near by who may have dropped it there.

So to sum up, in practicality I'm asking what the alternatives to slave labour are (where if you can't find any alternatives your claim sounds unreasonable).

Ok, the technological advantage means machines replace a very many people. So because there were a lot of people involved, therefore they weren't paid? Where is the logical link there?

Wal-Mart, for instance... uses slave labour?

Pretty damn close if you ask me.

However, it seems clear from what we know of Egypt that they enslaved people. It would make sense to use these slaves to build pyramids.

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

Ok, the technological advantage means machines replace a very many people. So because there were a lot of people involved, therefore they weren't paid? Where is the logical link there?

Wal-Mart, for instance... uses slave labour?

Ah, so your justification is that they're primitives.


Considering the level of precision and skill that was necessary for the construction of the pyramids, that makes it much more likely that it was paid labour rather than slave labour.

You're completely missing the point, the Egyptians could no way have afforded to pay the huge amounts of workers anything but a very small amount of money, hence it's the equivalent of slave labour (like I said at the very beginning) and for practicalities sake, hardly different at all.

...So to sum up, in practicality I'm asking what the alternatives to slave labour are (where if you can't find any alternatives your claim sounds unreasonable).

Alternative: paid labour
How hard is it?

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

jesus' birth story doesn't obey the rules governing time at non-relativistic speeds.

Pretty damn close if you ask me.

However, it seems clear from what we know of Egypt that they enslaved people. It would make sense to use these slaves to build pyramids.

"close" still counts as paid labour...
But the point is that if you have an enterprise big enough to involve that many people, you can't necessarily discount the possibility of paying them.
However, now you are moving from "impossible" to "improbable."
At least now you seem to admit that, while it seems likely that they used slaves, it is not impossible to use paid labour for it.

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

Contradicting the OT is contradicting the NT...
You can have the OT without the NT (there are plenty of Jews who do) but without the OT, the NT makes no sense whatsoever...
Your distinction is senseless.

"close" still counts as paid labour...
But the point is that if you have an enterprise big enough to involve that many people, you can't necessarily discount the possibility of paying them.
However, now you are moving from "impossible" to "improbable."
At least now you seem to admit that, while it seems likely that they used slaves, it is not impossible to use paid labour for it.

Pro tip: whenever somebody says "seems impossible" they don't actually mean "impossible with absolute certainty".

Alternative: paid labour
How hard is it?

See above

You're completely missing the point, the Egyptians could no way have afforded to pay the huge amounts of workers anything but a very small amount of money, hence it's the equivalent of slave labour (like I said at the very beginning) and for practicalities sake, hardly different at all.

Because there were a lot of people, Egypt couldn't have paid? There just wasn't enough money?

And if you want to apply that to my Wal-Mart analogy, please tell me...
So you are of the opinion that Wal-Mart
a) doesn't pay enough to justify differentiation from slavery, and
b) couldn't?

Pro tip: whenever somebody says "seems impossible" they don't actually mean "impossible with absolute certainty".

No. I didn't say you did. What I said was that you were arguing against the existence of a way. Which you still are, arguing that they could not have paid that many labourers.

"close" still counts as paid labour...

Walmart doesn't use slave labour. They use a minimum wage that is so low that I would spit on them for even offering me that kind of an hourly wage.

But the point is that if you have an enterprise big enough to involve that many people, you can't necessarily discount the possibility of paying them.
However, now you are moving from "impossible" to "improbable."
At least now you seem to admit that, while it seems likely that they used slaves, it is not impossible to use paid labour for it.

I'm not the same person you've been arguing with. I'm not admitting anything either.

Egypt could very well have used both paid labour and slave labour.

Because there were a lot of people, Egypt couldn't have paid? There just wasn't enough money?


That and also that this has been the trend historically in other cultures.


And if you want to apply that to my Wal-Mart analogy, please tell me...
So you are of the opinion that Wal-Mart
a) doesn't pay enough to justify differentiation from slavery, and
b) couldn't?

Well we like to call it slave labour, but Wal Mart pay far, far more than what many cultures have paid their work force.

No. I didn't say you did. What I said was that you were arguing against the existence of a way. Which you still are, arguing that they could not have paid that many labourers.

No I'm saying that it's extremely unlikely they paid them anything but a very small amount.

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

If science contradicts the OT story of creation, for instance, the entire basis of the NT is gone. What is sin then? Why should death, perfect or not, make a difference? Why should the Jews be any different from anyone else? What's the point of telling the young rich man to obey the commandments?

That and also that this has been the trend historically in other cultures.



Well we like to call it slave labour, but Wal Mart pay far, far more than what many cultures have paid their work force.

Thus my point that it is possible to pay that many people...

I'm not the same person you've been arguing with.

Ah... apologies...
My mistake.

Ah... apologies...
My mistake.

It's okay :)

But back to the matter at hand: Slavery was known to exist in ancient Egypt. You're now going to build huge pyramids. Surely, they'd have used slaves to build them?

This doesn't exclude paid scribes, technicians and 'engineers' making sure that it's built well. Nor does it exclude drafted peasants getting paid, which is effectively indentured servitude and at worst, slavery depending on how you regard drafting. However, there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't have used slaves during their constructions.

It's okay :)

But back to the matter at hand: Slavery was known to exist in ancient Egypt. You're now going to build huge pyramids. Surely, they'd have used slaves to build them?

This doesn't exclude paid scribes, technicians and 'engineers' making sure that it's built well. Nor does it exclude drafted peasants getting paid, which is effectively indentured servitude and at worst, slavery depending on how you regard drafting. However, there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't have used slaves during their constructions.

Granted. I'm not arguing that the Egyptians used paid labour, and definitely, not arguing that they used solely well-paid labour with plenty of rights. I'm arguing that it's possible that they used paid labour.
Hydesland claimed it seemed impossible. I say it is possible. Not that it is probable.

It's okay :)

But back to the matter at hand: Slavery was known to exist in ancient Egypt. You're now going to build huge pyramids. Surely, they'd have used slaves to build them?

This doesn't exclude paid scribes, technicians and 'engineers' making sure that it's built well. Nor does it exclude drafted peasants getting paid, which is effectively indentured servitude and at worst, slavery depending on how you regard drafting. However, there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't have used slaves during their constructions.
Points \/
Considering the level of precision and skill that was necessary for the construction of the pyramids, that makes it much more likely that it was paid labour rather than slave labour.

Points \/

Points \/

This doesn't exclude paid scribes, technicians and 'engineers' making sure that it's built well. Nor does it exclude drafted peasants getting paid, which is effectively indentured servitude and at worst, slavery depending on how you regard drafting. However, there is absolutely no reason why they wouldn't have used slaves during their constructions.

Thus my point that it is possible to pay that many people...

Except that these days it's a hell of a lot more easier to raise capital now then it was then, basically we are a lot richer then the Egyptians were.

Except that these days it's a hell of a lot more easier to raise capital now then it was then, basically we are a lot richer then the Egyptians were.

Care to back that claim up, or is this another one where we're supposed to your research for you?

Except that these days it's a hell of a lot more easier to raise capital now then it was then, basically we are a lot richer then the Egyptians were.

easier to raise capital...
So
a) the egyptians had no money, and
b) Walmart would not have enough money to pay employees without raising capital? So they are operating on a deficit?

Care to back that claim up, or is this another one where we're supposed to your research for you?

Oh God, are you seriously asking me to back this up? You know it's nice to come into a debate where people have a reasonable knowledge of history and at least a very small understanding of economics (which you probably do as well, you're just being deliberately obtuse). I really can't be bothered to back it up and take you through a primary school course in history, so I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree.

easier to raise capital...
So
a) the egyptians had no money, and


No just a lot less.


b) Walmart would not have enough money to pay employees without raising capital?

Edit: ok let me re-iterate. It's far easier and cheaper to produce large amounts of goods now then it used to be, thus companies are much richer now than they used to be and therefore can afford to pay their workers a lot more (at least in the west).

Walmart earns money.

Building pyramids is not a money making venture.

Using slavery does not exclude using paid labour.

No just a lot less.



Well duuuh.
so in a relative sense, the Egyptians had significantly less money than WalMart?
What do you mean by "raising capital" then? I don't think I understand you.

Oh God, are you seriously asking me to back this up?

I thought as much.

Walmart earns money.

Building pyramids is not a money making venture.

Using slavery does not exclude using paid labour.

Building pyramids is what was done with the profit.
I was not comparing WalMart to the pyramid crew, I was comparing it to the entire country.

and no, slavery and paid labour are not mutually exclusive.

so in a relative sense, the Egyptians had significantly less money than WalMart?


No, in a relative sense the Egyptians were probably the richest people on earth (at least to the Egyptian people). In an objective comparison, WalMart are probably a lot richer.


What do you mean by "raising capital" then? I don't think I understand you.

See my edit.

I thought as much.

Back this up.

I'm not sure where you got your history. Ramses II wasn't reknowned as a slaveholder at all,

Never said he was. What I said was that because Egypt did have slaves during the New Kingdom, and because Exodus took place about the same time has Ramses II's reign, it is possible that the Jews were slaves. But they werent building pyramids.

and there is no suggestion that Pi-Ramesses was built by slaves. There is evidence that suggests two nations conquered by Egypt came to pay tribute to Ramses at Pi-Ramesses.... but that's about it.

Its what I was taught. However, I think I got the city wrong, I dont think Pi-Ramesses is the city I had in mind. Im looking through my notes right now for the name I meant to say.

There is also no evidence to connect Hebrew slaves to the other construction projects under Ramses II. Likewise - no evidence of any of the other peculiar details of the Biblical Exodus (No 'moses', no plagues, etc).

No, I agree there isnt. What I am saying is if they were there, it is possible they were slaves. Because the timing is right. Im not saying anything for sure.

Should I be offended or relieved here?

relieved. after all, a balm is a dangerous animal.

How about common sense, where the alternative theories are even more extreme and bizarre and the simplest explanation is always the best? etc...

I explained this. They were built by conscripted peasents who were PAYED. Thats not slavery. Egypt did not keep slaves during the time of the Old Kingdom.

I explained this. They were built by conscripted peasents who were PAYED. Thats not slavery. Egypt did not keep slaves during the time of the Old Kingdom.

And as I have already said, they were most likely paid such a small amount that it was the equivalent of slavery (which is why I said the word equivalent at the very beginning, as I have also already said over and over).

That we know of!

Did you read the verse in Judges I referred you to?

Judges 18:29
They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel—though the city used to be called Laish.

They named a place Dan which wasn't previously named Dan. How simple can it get?

Why are you so commited to the idea of Moses writing the Torah anyway? He's not identified as the author anywhere in the text.

relieved. after all, a balm is a dangerous animal.

what if I WANT to be considered a dangerous animal?

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

That verse where Satan shows Jesus the entire world from a mountain peak.

Can someone tell me where science contradicts the New Testament, more specifically the Words of Christ? Where's the contradiction? And please don't qoute the Old Testament when I asked for the New Testament in Black and White.

He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

Mustard as the largest garden plant? The size of a tree and able to support the weight of several birds? Botany says no.

EDIT: Oh, and how about Mark 16:17-18? To the best of our knowledge, Christians can neither miraculously heal the sick or survive poisoning. I have offered to conduct scientific trials on the latter, but sadly there was a severe lack of volunteers.

It's okay :)

But back to the matter at hand: Slavery was known to exist in ancient Egypt. You're now going to build huge pyramids. Surely, they'd have used slaves to build them?

How easy do you think it'd be to control the sheer number of slaves required with only bronze age weapons? You'd need so many guards that it'd be easier to use serfs.

How easy do you think it'd be to control the sheer number of slaves required with only bronze age weapons? You'd need so many guards that it'd be easier to use serfs.

in terms of control, what's the difference between serfs and slaves who have been slaves for a generation or two? Even a decade or two, really?

in terms of control, what's the difference between serfs and slaves who have been slaves for a generation or two? Even a decade or two, really?

Slaves rebel.

Slaves rebel.

:confused: ok
I don't understand, but that's ok... it was just a sidenote anyway.

:confused: ok
I don't understand, but that's ok... it was just a sidenote anyway.

Slaves are far more likely to rebel than serfs.

Well...the answer I think its not. There are thoudsands of stories about Sinbad... but I dont think that means there was an historic Sinbad.

Well, no but then again no I is saying that Sinbad was an actual person, unlike King Arthur.

I believe the original argument was that a generation of word-of-mouth before recording was enough to make it uncertain. So if the Ancient stories are at least a generation removed, then I would argue that you still could not be sure.

Yes the story as it is presented my be incertain, but surely the story has some base, things may have changed, some parts omitted, others added, but the point remains is that the basic part of the story actually happened, i.e There was a man called Arthur who was King maybe not of Wessex, but of some area in England, and he must have done enough to remain in the minds of people to tell the next generation of his reign.

Mustard as the largest garden plant? The size of a tree and able to support the weight of several birds? Botany says no.

EDIT: Oh, and how about Mark 16:17-18? To the best of our knowledge, Christians can neither miraculously heal the sick or survive poisoning. I have offered to conduct scientific trials on the latter, but sadly there was a severe lack of volunteers.

Firstly that is meant to be a metaphor, secondly I seem to recall my biology teacher talking about two different mustard plants there was the small one where we get our black mustard seeds, and there was another plant that was a lot larger that grew in North Africa and the Middle East this produces white mustard seeds

Yes the story as it is presented my be incertain, but surely the story has some base, things may have changed, some parts omitted, others added, but the point remains is that the basic part of the story actually happened, i.e There was a man called Arthur who was King maybe not of Wessex, but of some area in England, and he must have done enough to remain in the minds of people to tell the next generation of his reign.

But WHY must the story have a basis?
and WHY would he have to be named Arthur? You admit that various things have been changed, so why would his name be immune to that?

But WHY must the story have a basis?
and WHY would he have to be named Arthur? You admit that various things have been changed, so why would his name be immune to that?

I never said anything about bias?

Well I did say it may be some Gaelic equivalent or may have been something similar to Arthur. And then when we talk about King Arthur we are actually referring to this man.

Never said he was. What I said was that because Egypt did have slaves during the New Kingdom, and because Exodus took place about the same time has Ramses II's reign, it is possible that the Jews were slaves. But they werent building pyramids.

And did they actually leave ? I mean.. the Egyptians seem to have completely failed to notice a large part of their workforce disappearing... You would expect some recession at least.

I never said anything about bias?

Well I did say it may be some Gaelic equivalent or may have been something similar to Arthur. And then when we talk about King Arthur we are actually referring to this man.

Not bias, basis. Why must a story have a true base?

And I don't care if his name was spelled A-r-t-h-u-r or was some gaelic equivalent. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe, based on the stories, that there was a king by any specific name.

Not bias, basis. Why must a story have a true base?

And I don't care if his name was spelled A-r-t-h-u-r or was some gaelic equivalent. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe, based on the stories, that there was a king by any specific name.

Or just one for that matter. King Arthur could well be an amalgam of several noticeable leaders, with some myths and fantasy thrown in.

After all, people could not watch soapoperas back then. Entertainment has to come from somewhere...

Or just one for that matter. King Arthur could well be an amalgam of several noticeable leaders, with some myths and fantasy thrown in.

After all, people could not watch soapoperas back then. Entertainment has to come from somewhere...

e-zackly!

Not bias, basis. Why must a story have a true base?

Oops, Well it is a legend and in my mind the legend comes from something, it would be like saying that the Trojan wars and the fall of Troy never happened and no it may not have happened exactly like Homer described it, but it did happen.

And I don't care if his name was spelled A-r-t-h-u-r or was some gaelic equivalent. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to believe, based on the stories, that there was a king by any specific name.

Well yes the stories may be from a collection of kings in a time period maybe it was the House of Arthur or something. Because the stories are there, and have been told through the ages

e-zackly!

Which is something I do not deny, that people may have eloborated on the stories, or sitting around in the huts after a hard days work the young gather around the old people and hear stories of Kings and Queens, and other bits of history, Of course the people may have exgaarated the story a bit, that is not to say that there wasn't same base that started it off.

Oops, Well it is a legend and in my mind the legend comes from something, it would be like saying that the Trojan wars and the fall of Troy never happened and no it may not have happened exactly like Homer described it, but it did happen.



Well yes the stories may be from a collection of kings in a time period maybe it was the House of Arthur or something. Because the stories are there, and have been told through the ages



Which is something I do not deny, that people may have eloborated on the stories, or sitting around in the huts after a hard days work the young gather around the old people and hear stories of Kings and Queens, and other bits of history, Of course the people may have exgaarated the story a bit, that is not to say that there wasn't same base that started it off.

So the facts may not be the same, the individuals may not be the same, the names may not be the same, but it has a true basis that you can learn from the story.
What is that? That kings had knights? or maybe that there was a specific king with knights? maybe even a king with knights who rode horses and fought each other for honor?

What I said was that because Egypt did have slaves during the New Kingdom, and because Exodus took place about the same time has Ramses II's reign, it is possible that the Jews were slaves.Fail.
Egypt had no Aamu ('asiatic') slaves in the New Kingdom. The only period in which large numbers of Aamu slaves were in Egypt was the 12th and 13th Dynasties. The Exodus took place under king Dudimose (Manetho's Tutimaos), right before the first wave of Lesser Hyksos incursions began.
And Jews did not exist back then, nor did any Jew-ish types. Yhvh had not been invented for another 500 years.

So the facts may not be the same, the individuals may not be the same, the names may not be the same, but it has a true basis that you can learn from the story.
What is that? That kings had knights? or maybe that there was a specific king with knights? maybe even a king with knights who rode horses and fought each other for honor?

All the facts might not be the same, that is to say that there may have been no lady living in the bottom of the lake and gave Arthur a sword. But there was a King who assembled knights married a women and looked after his lands, now he must have done something extraordinary in order for people still to speak about him to this day it may not be everything that the legend now says but something and not to speak about his predecessor, and yes it may have been a bit boring but then that is why the story was elaborated on by people throughout the centuries.

All the facts might not be the same, that is to say that there may have been no lady living in the bottom of the lake and gave Arthur a sword. But there was a King who assembled knights married a women and looked after his lands, now he must have done something extraordinary in order for people still to speak about him to this day it may not be everything that the legend now says but something and not to speak about his predecessor, and yes it may have been a bit boring but then that is why the story was elaborated on by people throughout the centuries.

Why couldn't he just be the type of king people wished they'd had?
I mean, beyond "assembled knights married a women and looked after his lands," which is basically standard for any king of the time, how can you know that he did anything? Especially if the story did evolve?

Good point, but a king where the name has changed to Arthur but we know that is the person we are referring to, it may have been some Gaelic equivalent, or it may have been close to Arthur such as Arhyr, but that is who we are talking about.

Or it could be completely fictional. Or based on a guy called Fred, and the name is a complete artifact. And the being a king. And the knights.

The question is - with evidence as overwhelmingly absent as we have, how much of the story do we have to assume as conjecture, before we start to allow that maybe 'King Arthur' is fictional?

Maybe it will be more obvious if I use an example: I know a lot about Bruce Wayne. I've noticed, in the last few years, that more and more information about Bruce Wayne has become available. I even know his concealed identity. I've seen arguments before that people don't just make up that level of detail for a fictional character.

So - if we allow that MAYBE Bruce Wayne wasn't REALLY The Batman... is it safe to assume Bruce Wayne really existed?

What about if we assume he wasn't really a wealthy man?

What if we assume his parents weren't murdered by Jack Napier?

If we keep stripping away these elements of associated fact, do we logically arrive at a core of truth? Is there reason to believe that Bruce Wayne must have existed, and there's just a debatable amount of information out there that might not really be about him?

If we KEEP stripping away the accretion of myth, shouldn't we - at some point - allow for the fact that maybe the whole story is some manner of artifact?

How about common sense, where the alternative theories are even more extreme and bizarre and the simplest explanation is always the best? etc...

Which still isn't relevent.

Even if Egypt was built entirely by slaves, that still wouldn't be relevent to the subject of whether or not the Exodus story is based on reality, or whether or not Hebrew slaves ever were used/even existed.

If you disagree, show reasonable alternatives ffs. Are you knew to NSG or something?


You made an assertion. That puts the burden of proof on you, if there is one - not on others to prove your assertion wrong.

Are you new to NSG or something?


Haha, probably about 5% of all claims on NSG are actually 'backed up', since most claims do not require it (common sense) or cannot be backed up only proven false (like my statement). I did not make a statement intended to be fact and an objective rebuttle of Grave_n_Idles point, I was merely pointing out the absurdity in his statement a.k.a asking him to back his up.


You want me to prove what? An absence of slaves?

In Egyptian history, there were preiods of slaveholding, and periods that appear to have been less likely to have taken slaves. One of the strongest evidences, is that the Egyptians tended to record military actions, including things like casualties, spoils of war, and.. yes, you guessed it, slaves taken.

Under Ramses II, there are conflicts recorded. There are two tributaries (at Pi-Ramesses) detailed... but no record of slavetaking.

Does that mean there's no possibility that there were slaves under Ramses II? Of course not - but it does mean there is no really good reason to believe that THAT era of Egypt involved the holding of foreign slaves.


So to sum up, in practicality I'm asking what the alternatives to slave labour are (where if you can't find any alternatives your claim sounds unreasonable).

Voluntary labour? Labour as payment-in-kind for some otehr service? Some kind of communal work policy? The Egyptian equivalent of The New Deal?

No necessity for slavery, at all. Certainly not for external slavetaking, which is what Exodus would require... and which is why I said your point was irrelevent.

...it seems clear from what we know of Egypt that they enslaved people.

Egyptian history spans something like three millennia.

That's seven-and-a-half times as long as the time since the Jamestown settlers... or thirteen times the history of the US as a sovereign power. What we know of the US suggests that they enslaved people.

See the point I'm making?

Never said he was. What I said was that because Egypt did have slaves during the New Kingdom, and because Exodus took place about the same time has Ramses II's reign, it is possible that the Jews were slaves. But they werent building pyramids.


There's no evidence of consistent slaveholding. There's no evidence of slaveholding under Ramses II. There's no definitive evidence that 'Exodus' (if real) would have coincided with the reign of Ramses II.

(Indeed, attempts to reconcile various elements of the Biblical account with other available evidence result in a range of something like four or five hundred years as the window of opportunity).

in terms of control, what's the difference between serfs and slaves who have been slaves for a generation or two? Even a decade or two, really?

Serfs recognise themselves as being part of the same community as their rulers, slaves are actively set aside from it.

Oops, Well it is a legend and in my mind the legend comes from something, it would be like saying that the Trojan wars and the fall of Troy never happened and no it may not have happened exactly like Homer described it, but it did happen.

So.. Little Red Riding Hood is not a metaphor for a porn story, but based on an actual event where a wolf dressed up as granny ?

Firstly that is meant to be a metaphor,

Eh? Are you suggesting that Jesus was being sarcastic when he suggested that the 'Good News' would spread to reach huge numbers of people? "Yeah, right, there's as much chance of my message reaching Greece as there is of this mustard plant growing to the size of a tree!"

How is it meant to be a metaphor for anything?

secondly I seem to recall my biology teacher talking about two different mustard plants there was the small one where we get our black mustard seeds, and there was another plant that was a lot larger that grew in North Africa and the Middle East this produces white mustard seeds

You're not thinking of the African swallow are you? They're so big they can carry coconuts. ;)

Seriously though, I'm going to need a source before I believe that oriental mustard was the size of a tree.

Egyptian history spans something like three millennia.

That's seven-and-a-half times as long as the time since the Jamestown settlers... or thirteen times the history of the US as a sovereign power. What we know of the US suggests that they enslaved people.

See the point I'm making?

Bad comparison since the US economy is still largely based on slavery. It is called "outsourcing" now, and it all happens in other countries- but the fact remains that quite a lot of things US citizens buy were made by slaves.

Seriously though, I'm going to need a source before I believe that oriental mustard was the size of a tree.
IIRC, the many different mustard plants, for there are quite a number, only grow into shrubs, not trees; although some of these shrubs can be quite large.

There's an interesting discussion of the Christian parable and its implications here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Mustard_Seed).

Bad comparison since the US economy is still largely based on slavery. It is called "outsourcing" now, and it all happens in other countries- but the fact remains that quite a lot of things US citizens buy were made by slaves.

Not a bad example, at all. Whether or not we base our current economy on the products of slaves is irrelevent to whether or not WE are a slaveholder society.

Endorsing slavery in others, even, is not the same as having your own slaves.

The argument is being made that "Egypt kept slaves". Sure they did.... but not soliodly for 3000 years. If we're going to apply that kind of logic, we have to be willing to apply it accross the board... or we have to come to the realisation that - just because x was true a hundred years ago, don't make it true today.

IIRC, the many different mustard plants, for there are quite a number, only grow into shrubs, not trees; although some of these shrubs can be quite large.

There's an interesting discussion of the Christian parable and its implications here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Mustard_Seed).

I think they may be reading too much into it: it could just be that Jesus didn't know much about agriculture. Most of his parables makes some kind of sense (kneading ingredients into dough until they're spread throughout the mixture, or not putting new wine in old wineskins) but whenever the stories take an agricultural bent they quickly become strange, like the farmer who cheerfully scatters seed on the path and on rocky ground (the idea of seed on rocky ground shooting up at increased speed also seems odd: if anything it'd be stunted by the lack of nutrients). There's also the story of Jesus looking for figs on a tree out of season, a frankly silly mistake. Maybe he was just a city boy who was ignorant of plants?

Maybe he was just a city boy who was ignorant of plants?
Too much mucking about in down-town Jeruselem, away from the rural carpentry business.

Not a bad example, at all. Whether or not we base our current economy on the products of slaves is irrelevent to whether or not WE are a slaveholder society.

Endorsing slavery in others, even, is not the same as having your own slaves.


"I do not hold slaves myself, I just let other people do it for me".
Hypocritical.

I'm back and i figured out why it would have taken less water to cover the Earth in the great flood then than it would now.

I'm back and i figured out why it would have taken less water to cover the Earth in the great flood then than it would now.

Oh goody. Please, tell us why.:rolleyes:

Oh goody. Please, tell us why.:rolleyes:

The Earth was young back then. Mountains were not very high yet.

Is there really a conflict between science and religion?

Do you want the politically correct/diplomatic answer, or the honest one?

The Earth was young back then. Mountains were not very high yet.

How utterly idiotic.


What do you have to say to the evidence that there was never a flood that covered the entire world?

Probably something equally as idiotic.

The Earth was young back then. Mountains were not very high yet.

Still not enough water.

Still not enough water.

There was a firmiment.

The Earth was young back then. Mountains were not very high yet.

How fast do mountains "grow" according to you ? Can we see them rise up majestically ?

There was a firmiment.

So where'd the excess water go?

The Earth was young back then. Mountains were not very high yet.Why? Do mountains grow??

So where'd the excess water go?

He answered this already. It evaporated, which, of course, makes water completely disappear.

Why? Do mountains grow??

Well, some do. Plate tectonics at some boundaries, as well as volcanic activity, result in an increase in the height of some mountains. That self-same tectonic and volcanic activity are the reason most mountains are there.

But they don't grow at a rate that would make a significant difference over a paltry 6000 years.

Well, some do. Plate tectonics at some boundaries, as well as volcanic activity, result in an increase in the height of some mountains. That self-same tectonic and volcanic activity are the reason most mountains are there.

But they don't grow at a rate that would make a significant difference over a paltry 6000 years.

Maybe God gave them a little push.

Well, some do. Plate tectonics at some boundaries, as well as volcanic activity, result in an increase in the height of some mountains. That self-same tectonic and volcanic activity are the reason most mountains are there.

But they don't grow at a rate that would make a significant difference over a paltry 6000 years.

A wizard did i--

Maybe God gave them a little push.

Damn. Beaten to it.

So where'd the excess water go?

back into the oceans, underground, and into the atmosphere.

Well, some do. Plate tectonics at some boundaries, as well as volcanic activity, result in an increase in the height of some mountains. That self-same tectonic and volcanic activity are the reason most mountains are there.

But they don't grow at a rate that would make a significant difference over a paltry 6000 years.

Exactly Tectonic Plates. that's how all mountains were supposedly born.

back into the oceans, underground, and into the atmosphere.

Unlikely. The amount of water can't be accounted for that way, as any attempt to argue mass evaporation runs into a little problem we call "kinetic energy."

Exactly Tectonic Plates. that's how all mountains were supposedly born.

...
...

Did you not notice the last sentence in the post you quoted?

Exactly Tectonic Plates. that's how all mountains were supposedly born.

The process results in an increase in height on the order of a centimeter or three per century. Try again, kiddo.